Transcriber B - while I have a moment to communicate with you directly, let me just say how much I appreciate the transcriptions you have been posting lately by the NYC fire department personnel who lost their jobs for the sake of their principles.
I appreciate the "real-world" glimpses your transcriptions provide.
Dear Buffalo_Ken, thank you for reading, and for your kind words. I myself was very moved to hear these testimonies. Such a terrible, unforgettable injustice has been done to these workers.
When it comes to the "germ" theory versus "terrain" theory debate, I am squarely on the side of Bechamp. I think the whole "germ" theory concept is actually a tool of fear used by nefarious forces who think they got the right to rule us all. I don't think we should be afraid of small things and while a fox may kiss a wolf every know and then, usually the fox is advised not to get too close to the wolf.
Likewise, the wolf is advised not to mess in the business of the fox.
I'm on the side of Bechamp - and like so many other ideas stifled from the 19th century, such as those espoused by Kropotkin, the time of better ideas asserting their truth is upon us. Ideas that have been stifled for many generations have force to be reckoned with.
I'm of the belief that terrain theory controls, but there are some elements of germ theory that also contain truths. I agree that those elements of truth are used to construct a big, false narrative that is the foundation of germ theory. Even the whole shift away from the theory of miasma in the late 19th century is a falsehood.
Miasma, "poison air" is very much like what the study on the microbiology of the air in dust clouds describes. Miasma was supposedly disproven science. Disproven at the same time that germ theory came into prominence. But, the studies that were used to disprove miasma were limited in what they were measuring. Intentionally? The germ theorists used extremes, obvious absurdities to discredit miasma. But they tossed out the truths it contained, primarily that the air contains microbiology that can travel across the planet, independent of man's actions, that can cause disease in bodies with weakened immune systems.
Material, like bacteria, phage, mushrooms, dust particulates, ionized matter with energy that is difficult to measure with the tools available to us today that actually can cause disease in an unwell, unfit body. Germ theory emphasizes person-to-person transmission of disease and is dismissive of the role of the natural world. Which miasma acknowledges. If the study of the microbiology of air in dust clouds is accurate, and it is, then miasma theory cannot be summarily dismissed, as it's been.
There is truth usually found in all sides of an issue. It's why we continue to learn, it's why real science is always open-ended, never "settled." The truth is usually found in a blend of theories. To find truth we must first eliminate those theories that are useful for those who seek to control mankind, our actions. Control of others is a powerful agenda. Those theories that provide justification for the control of mankind must be avoided, eliminated from consideration, barring clear and convincing evidence, replicable, controllable, randomized evidence. Most germ theory doesn't pass this test. The parts that do are the parts I concede contain truth.
I agree that is not "black" and "white" - not all one is wrong and the other is correct - tis not a binary dichotomy - but, the concept of "germ theory" - the idea that some small entities are out there for no other purpose than to cause harm to a species is really contradictory to the whole concept of evolution which Kropotkin correctly surmised in my humble opinion to be as simple as this - "the species that works together with its own member and other species in general mutually is the one most likely to survive" - an nature seems to bear this out.
As for the dog in the image, I think it is half husky and half wolf true. Huskies and wolves are close.
As for the fox, I think it is a spoiled fox in a way, but that is not a bad thing - maybe the fox had a tough upbringing and then was found by a family of angels? It is a possibility.
It says it's from an Instagram post ( https://www.instagram.com/p/BKeZP0shwvQ/ ), but I can't see the image on that platform since I don't have an account. I'll source the picture properly, I try to when it's not clearly marked open source and I can find origin.
After thinking about it, let me put it this way. The wolf was posing there at the side of the water in the grey rocks and truly what would the incentive be for a fox at that moment out in the open to come up there and touch noses with the wolf posing?
Edit: So without seeing the outer context of the image, and ain't that always the way it is, tis hard to judge the veracity of it - to me I don't think most foxes would present themselves that way to a wolf in the open.
I'm very fond of the picture, and I think it could happen, but I suspect it was sort of embellished, but it doesn't matter because I think the foxes and the wolves DO work together and if they want to kiss noses, then tis up to them who they mix with!
Now that I think about it the fox and dog names are familiar. I followed them on Facebook when I was still on social media. They grew up together. I saw pictures of that same fox lying on its back in a bed getting belly rubs. The owner acknowledged that even though it was tamed it was still a wild animal, still had to be alert to that fact no matter how tame it was in any given moment. But it got along with the wolfdog (it's a mix) it shared the home/outdoors with. Definitely not a staged or doctored photo.
Thanks for this.
P.S. (For those lacking a sense of smell)
A Handy 10 Point Checklist for Criminal Male Bovine Fecal Deposit Detection
▢ 1. Government bureaucrat with high status and big paycheck at podium / on TV
▢ 2. Pushing medical directive as one-size-fits-all (or within a given group one-size-fits-all)
▢ 3. Said directive directly and importantly financially benefits for-profit entities in the medical industrial complex
▢ 4. Political party of said government bureaucrat receives financial support from for-profit entities that would attend to said medical directive
▢ 5. Egregious violation of human rights
▢ 6. Glamor psy-op ("science" is so modern and sophisticated, we soar high above your weenie little questions)
▢ 7. Guilt-trip psy-op (if you don't agree, you are selfish / innocent people will die, etc.)
▢ 8. Status-danger psy-op (if you don't agree, you are stupid, uneducated, kooky, mentally ill, low-class, wrong skin color, and/or right wing extremist)
▢ 9. Relevant data nonexistent and/or censored and/or gamed
▢ 10. Anyone who promotes alternative treatments censored / shadow-banned / maliciously smeared
Great checklist! Thank you!
Transcriber B - while I have a moment to communicate with you directly, let me just say how much I appreciate the transcriptions you have been posting lately by the NYC fire department personnel who lost their jobs for the sake of their principles.
I appreciate the "real-world" glimpses your transcriptions provide.
Much thanks for your effort.
Ken
Dear Buffalo_Ken, thank you for reading, and for your kind words. I myself was very moved to hear these testimonies. Such a terrible, unforgettable injustice has been done to these workers.
When it comes to the "germ" theory versus "terrain" theory debate, I am squarely on the side of Bechamp. I think the whole "germ" theory concept is actually a tool of fear used by nefarious forces who think they got the right to rule us all. I don't think we should be afraid of small things and while a fox may kiss a wolf every know and then, usually the fox is advised not to get too close to the wolf.
Likewise, the wolf is advised not to mess in the business of the fox.
I'm on the side of Bechamp - and like so many other ideas stifled from the 19th century, such as those espoused by Kropotkin, the time of better ideas asserting their truth is upon us. Ideas that have been stifled for many generations have force to be reckoned with.
Peace is easy,
BK
I'm of the belief that terrain theory controls, but there are some elements of germ theory that also contain truths. I agree that those elements of truth are used to construct a big, false narrative that is the foundation of germ theory. Even the whole shift away from the theory of miasma in the late 19th century is a falsehood.
Miasma, "poison air" is very much like what the study on the microbiology of the air in dust clouds describes. Miasma was supposedly disproven science. Disproven at the same time that germ theory came into prominence. But, the studies that were used to disprove miasma were limited in what they were measuring. Intentionally? The germ theorists used extremes, obvious absurdities to discredit miasma. But they tossed out the truths it contained, primarily that the air contains microbiology that can travel across the planet, independent of man's actions, that can cause disease in bodies with weakened immune systems.
Material, like bacteria, phage, mushrooms, dust particulates, ionized matter with energy that is difficult to measure with the tools available to us today that actually can cause disease in an unwell, unfit body. Germ theory emphasizes person-to-person transmission of disease and is dismissive of the role of the natural world. Which miasma acknowledges. If the study of the microbiology of air in dust clouds is accurate, and it is, then miasma theory cannot be summarily dismissed, as it's been.
There is truth usually found in all sides of an issue. It's why we continue to learn, it's why real science is always open-ended, never "settled." The truth is usually found in a blend of theories. To find truth we must first eliminate those theories that are useful for those who seek to control mankind, our actions. Control of others is a powerful agenda. Those theories that provide justification for the control of mankind must be avoided, eliminated from consideration, barring clear and convincing evidence, replicable, controllable, randomized evidence. Most germ theory doesn't pass this test. The parts that do are the parts I concede contain truth.
I agree that is not "black" and "white" - not all one is wrong and the other is correct - tis not a binary dichotomy - but, the concept of "germ theory" - the idea that some small entities are out there for no other purpose than to cause harm to a species is really contradictory to the whole concept of evolution which Kropotkin correctly surmised in my humble opinion to be as simple as this - "the species that works together with its own member and other species in general mutually is the one most likely to survive" - an nature seems to bear this out.
As for the dog in the image, I think it is half husky and half wolf true. Huskies and wolves are close.
As for the fox, I think it is a spoiled fox in a way, but that is not a bad thing - maybe the fox had a tough upbringing and then was found by a family of angels? It is a possibility.
Peace is easy,
Ken
Excellent article!
I have suggested the Carlin video on numerous blog comments.
The man was brilliant...
This Carlin video is spot-on, too:
It's A BIG Club & You Ain't In It!
https://youtu.be/Nyvxt1svxso
Did that fox really touch noses with the wolf?
Is that picture real?
(smile).
Ken
It's a great pic! I believe it's real. Found it on an internet search, "fox dog nature"
https://za.pinterest.com/pin/44121271336058687/
It says it's from an Instagram post ( https://www.instagram.com/p/BKeZP0shwvQ/ ), but I can't see the image on that platform since I don't have an account. I'll source the picture properly, I try to when it's not clearly marked open source and I can find origin.
Nayeli&Freya on Instagram: “💙 #wildhoundrep2016”
After thinking about it, let me put it this way. The wolf was posing there at the side of the water in the grey rocks and truly what would the incentive be for a fox at that moment out in the open to come up there and touch noses with the wolf posing?
Edit: So without seeing the outer context of the image, and ain't that always the way it is, tis hard to judge the veracity of it - to me I don't think most foxes would present themselves that way to a wolf in the open.
I'm very fond of the picture, and I think it could happen, but I suspect it was sort of embellished, but it doesn't matter because I think the foxes and the wolves DO work together and if they want to kiss noses, then tis up to them who they mix with!
Ha, ha.
I like it.
Ken
Now that I think about it the fox and dog names are familiar. I followed them on Facebook when I was still on social media. They grew up together. I saw pictures of that same fox lying on its back in a bed getting belly rubs. The owner acknowledged that even though it was tamed it was still a wild animal, still had to be alert to that fact no matter how tame it was in any given moment. But it got along with the wolfdog (it's a mix) it shared the home/outdoors with. Definitely not a staged or doctored photo.
Well, you are saying the dog and the fox knew each other already?
If so, that explains things.
Ken
Correct.
I love the opening pic. Such beauty!
❤